User talk:Fæ/2017
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Fæ. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
E-mails
I got two notifications telling me you sent me e-mails, but I have received none. Is there an error?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- I got them now. Not sure why there was a delay.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Bet you never thought you'd get a barnstar from me...
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| For your comment on the Wikimedia-l mailing list: "I find the idea of blocking dissenting voices repugnant and fundamentally against the Community value of openness and transparency. Dissent is not the same thing as disruption or being uncivil, I think the lines are becoming dangerously blurred in this area and we are in danger of seeing a super stupid dramafest being fueled." Best wishes, —Tim Davenport, Corvallis, OR (USA) /// Carrite (talk) 16:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC) |
Surgical discussion
Hi Fae, it's vinesh from Imperial College here. Can I ask if you are available for an email thread to discuss the surgical instruments project we have going on and Toni approached you about? I tried to email you from this page, it didn't work. Could you please send me an email through my login? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinnypatel (talk • contribs) 12:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Problem with IWM download
Sorry to bother you, but I'm trying to download [1] and cannot get the page to let me have the photo that I want as clicking on the photo just sends me to the bottom of the page. Given the IWM's attitude towards its photos, I'm wondering if there's some new system of hoops that I have to jump through to download a low-res photo that you might be aware of.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- Yes they have become more sneaky and stopped right-clicking on their pages. Odd that the tax-payer funds them, and these are public domain assets archived for the benefit of the public, yet they lock them up like they need to sell copies of these photographs to pay their salaries. Considering their income from reproductions probably does not cover the staff costs of handling sales or website security, it's plain stupidity as well as unethical. Try http://media.iwm.org.uk/ciim5/31/499/large_000000.jpg. --Fæ (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for your prompt response. So how do you get from the public page that I gave to the one that you found that allows a download?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- I looked at the page source code. Other ways of doing it probably depend on the browser, I doubt it's worth automating, especially considering that the IWM will be adjusting their 'security' on a regular basis. --Fæ (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- Good to know. Now I wonder if I should source it to the original page or the secret one when I upload it. Probably the original one, I think, as it's probably a bit more stable than the other one.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- I looked at the page source code. Other ways of doing it probably depend on the browser, I doubt it's worth automating, especially considering that the IWM will be adjusting their 'security' on a regular basis. --Fæ (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for your prompt response. So how do you get from the public page that I gave to the one that you found that allows a download?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Fæ. You used file:Adam Fury.JPG in Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Editathons/Bishopsgate Library, London/LGBT BLP images for illustrating Rhys Davies. In my opinion the depicted person is not correct person, simply non-notable namesake. Please take another look and remove the image, if inappropriate. Taivo (talk) 09:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
olive branch
"Let my disclaiming from a purposed evil/ free me so far in your most generous thoughts" (Hamlet Act V Scene II) Chris Troutman (talk) 19:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Accepted. Especially as your comment was seen as offensive enough to cause some backlash in the RfC, so that balances things a bit. --Fæ (talk) 19:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
420 Collaboration
Greetings, Fæ! We're in the midst of the 420 Collaboration and I'm wondering if you might have any interest in uploading some cannabis-related content to Wikimedia Commons as part of this ongoing campaign. If so, images can be added to our gallery. If not, no worries. I just know you're familiar with finding and uploading/transferring images to Commons en masse, so I wanted to send an invite. Take care! ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Jacqueline Suthren-Hirst
Hello Fæ,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Jacqueline Suthren-Hirst for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.
-- Aunva6talk - contribs 16:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
RfC about gender neutrality
Hello. I wonder whether you need a teamwork of more than one person to close "Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RfC to adopt a default gender neutral style for policy, guidelines and help pages". Seems that the discussion has gotten larger and more complex. --George Ho (talk) 00:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Probably not, as it would be an unusual procedure and I'm not convinced by statements made that the closure is difficult, complex or marginal compared to past RfCs. Any closer would probably best be someone with a history of reasonable closures and able to both take into account the different aspects of the numbers of votes made, where the balance of evidence and reliable sources lies, and the impact of tangential views that appear based on opinions about LGBT+ rights, rather than the actual proposal.
- You may want to continue the discussion about closure in the RfC, it may even be worth suggesting some names to help illustrate if we have to be concerned about apparent personal bias, or not. Either way, the RfC needs to stay open for the full 30 days, so there's plenty of time to finish discussing how closure should work. --Fæ (talk) 05:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- I see that editors are questioning the closure. Can you do the closure review at WP:AN then? --George Ho (talk) 04:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- The closer says they will reply, so I'd give them time to reconsider their close first. If that does not work out, then I suggest asking for a second independent close at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Obviously, in my view it's a bad close based on bad evidence. If necessary I would rerun the RfC after some time has passed, say in 6 months, however it is disrespectful to the people who have voted to abandon it. --Fæ (talk) 06:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- It is a bad close, but I think that requesting a second close is the way to go. I couldn't care less whether it's an admin who does it, but it should be someone who is very, very familiar with the closing process, assessing consensus, and evaluating various allegations that have been raised. The current closer already reopened it once (at my request) after announcing a close after a seemingly arbitrary 27 days. Asking them to reverse course again may be asking too much of an inexperienced editor, especially since there were at least two experienced editors, including an admin, on the RfC page clamoring for this "procedural close". They're clearly in way over their head, and they're not going to emerge from this looking good regardless of what they do now. Up to you, of course, but I wouldn't push too hard. RivertorchFIREWATER 08:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- There is a serious problem when users with so little demonstrated editing experience are allowed to close RfC on important issues. Especially in this manner, which to me reads like "I can't figure this out so I'll make a 'procedural' close of it. It'll make me look big and important." I won't comment as to what my instinct tells me about the user's age or maturity. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- Multi-editor closures on complex RfCs are not unheard of, there have been a few that I can recall in recent history, however I don't think this is sufficiently complex (or extensive) enough to require one. --kelapstick(bainuu) 11:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Kudpung: Same. But a random surf through the user contributions is illuminating. I feel now that I should have been less oblique in my comment, but in a year when fewer than 3000 edits are sufficient for all sorts of responsibilities, I thought that directness might be a faux pas. RivertorchFIREWATER 18:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- There is a serious problem when users with so little demonstrated editing experience are allowed to close RfC on important issues. Especially in this manner, which to me reads like "I can't figure this out so I'll make a 'procedural' close of it. It'll make me look big and important." I won't comment as to what my instinct tells me about the user's age or maturity. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- It is a bad close, but I think that requesting a second close is the way to go. I couldn't care less whether it's an admin who does it, but it should be someone who is very, very familiar with the closing process, assessing consensus, and evaluating various allegations that have been raised. The current closer already reopened it once (at my request) after announcing a close after a seemingly arbitrary 27 days. Asking them to reverse course again may be asking too much of an inexperienced editor, especially since there were at least two experienced editors, including an admin, on the RfC page clamoring for this "procedural close". They're clearly in way over their head, and they're not going to emerge from this looking good regardless of what they do now. Up to you, of course, but I wouldn't push too hard. RivertorchFIREWATER 08:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- The closer says they will reply, so I'd give them time to reconsider their close first. If that does not work out, then I suggest asking for a second independent close at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Obviously, in my view it's a bad close based on bad evidence. If necessary I would rerun the RfC after some time has passed, say in 6 months, however it is disrespectful to the people who have voted to abandon it. --Fæ (talk) 06:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- I see that editors are questioning the closure. Can you do the closure review at WP:AN then? --George Ho (talk) 04:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I started the request on close review at WP:AN. --George Ho (talk) 10:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
We're on Twitter!
| WikiLGBT is on Twitter! | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
Wiki Loves Pride 2017You are invited to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects throughout the month of June as part of the fourth annual Wiki Loves Pride campaign. Feel free to add new and expanded content on the project's Results page. Happy editing! ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC) We're on Twitter!
| ||||
- @RachelWex: Hi, thanks for posting. You may want to fix the date on your signature and ensure the table is closed before doing many more. On my page the early date on the signature meant that the post got archived very quickly.
Thanks Fæ (talk) 13:32, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Fae: Thanks for the suggestion Fae...I just made my signature on the announcement a live link without a date stamp..should save some problems. So far the announcement is bringing more followers to Twitter. User:RachelWex 18:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello
And good traveling! I saw you created the template "Template:British-Museum-100", and was wondering if there is some way to add italics to the title of the principal television series in visible space. Thanks, and nice work. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Randy Kryn: As it's a stable template, I tend to leave them alone. If the formating in italics is a standard, you can go ahead and change it as the normal italics wikiformat will work. --Fæ (talk) 08:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Signpost article
Hi Fae, just wanted to say that I just saw the Signpost article - when I do talks and mention the bulk upload, I do say that it was you working with Wellcome who accomplished it. Just wanted you to know - people are hearing about your contribution! Hope all's well. Zeromonk (talk) 16:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Invitation to join Women in Red
 You might be interested in becoming a member of our WikiProject Women in Red where we are actively trying to reduce Wikipedia's content gender gap. If you would like to receive news of our activities without becoming a member, you can simply add your name to our mailing list. In any case, thank you for actively contributing to the coverage of women (currently, 17.14% of English Wikipedia's biographies).
| ||
|
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) |
--Ipigott (talk) 10:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:St Helena 1961 Tristan Relief Fund postcard.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:St Helena 1961 Tristan Relief Fund postcard.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Nomination of Heather Unruh for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Heather Unruh is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heather Unruh until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 17:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
INeverCry
Thanks for the heads up re INeverCry block, but as a practical matter it's easier for me to post these messages without checking to see if the user has been blocked than to check for blocking first. —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Popups make this very natural. --Fæ (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Motion: Sexology
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
Remedy 4.1 ("Discretionary sanctions") of the Sexology case is rescinded. Any sanctions or other restrictions imposed under this remedy to date shall remain in force unaffected.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion: Sexology
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Fæ. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Bug ?
Hello, can you quickly look at phab:T150645 and tell if the problem still appear ? Thanks ! --Framawiki (please notify) (talk) 14:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- It'll probably be Tuesday before I'm at my desk. --Fæ (talk) 17:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Framawiki: Sorry, I'm not going to spend time recreating this after such a long delay. If I bang into it, probably when revisiting Noaabot in 2018, that may be a reason to lay out bug details and reopen the task. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- Ok, Ive closed this task. Have a nice day --Framawiki (please notify) (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Framawiki: Sorry, I'm not going to spend time recreating this after such a long delay. If I bang into it, probably when revisiting Noaabot in 2018, that may be a reason to lay out bug details and reopen the task. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)